Austin column: With judicial decisions, stick to issue at hand

On July 9, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rendered a 4-3 majority decision to avoid ruling on whether minors should be allowed to make their own medical decisions, stating that such a decision should be left in the hands of the state legislature.

The case involved a Jehovah's Witness teenager, identified as "Sheila W.," who, with her parents, objected to blood transfusions based upon Bible injunctions against blood consumption (i.e., Leviticus 17:10 and Acts 15:29). After Dane County filed a petition, the circuit court appointed a temporary guardian, who approved the administration of transfusions.

The majority opinion was accompanied by a separate concurring opinion from Justice David Prosser, which seemed to focus more on religious practice than on case law. At one point, he mused whether Sheila W.'s parents would have escaped criminal responsibility had she died. He apparently was likening this case to that of the Weston couple who prayed while their daughter was dying of undiagnosed diabetes.

Sheila W. and her parents, however, were not forgoing medical assistance - in fact, the girl was being treated at the University of Wisconsin Hospital in Madison. Their objection was to the form of recommended therapy. Sheila W.'s condition, aplastic leukemia, can be treated in a variety of ways, including medications, as well as through autologous stem cell transplant, in which stem cells are placed in a patient's body from his or her own bone marrow. There is no way of knowing whether these or other proven methods of treatment were considered or attempted.

And since Prosser seems given to pondering questions about legal liability, he could also ask if state, county, court and medical officials should have escaped criminal responsibility if Sheila W. had suffered any one of a number of transfusion reactions acknowledged by institutions such as Mayo Clinic, including lung injury, graft-versus-host disease and bloodborne virus infection (which led to the deaths of tennis legend Arthur Ashe, and the son and wife of actor-director Paul Michael Glaser).

Prosser also wrote, "? it is not sound public policy to force courts to give their imprimatur to a minor's commitment to martyrdom." Because recognized therapeutic alternatives exist for aplastic leukemia, Sheila W.'s refusal to accept a blood transfusion may have been more a case of a patient exercising informed choice. This choice has been exercised by individuals as varied as Gwyneth Paltrow (Asian cupping), Madonna (Ayurveda, a variation of East Indian yoga) and Suzanne Somers (who declined chemotherapy after being diagnosed with breast cancer).

Near the end of his separate opinion, Prosser added, "Some Jehovah's Witnesses have been accused of disfellowshipping, even shunning, members who consent to blood transfusions ? rais(ing) questions about whether a minor's decision to refuse blood transfusions ? is truly a voluntary decision."

He cited a 2001 British Journal of Medicine article written by Dr. Osamu Muramoto, a Portland, Ore.-based neurologist. Had Prosser read this article beyond its first few sentences, he would have discerned its gist that, at that point up through today, Jehovah's Witnesses, while strongly advocating the Bible's viewpoint on blood consumption, regard individuals' medical treatment choices as a matter of personal conscience, preference and conviction.

The court majority in the Sheila W. case chose to act with discretion and a sense of deference to the state government's legislative branch. Arguments can be made against that position, as evidenced by the minority response. What cannot be argued is that Justice Prosser may have better served the cause of objective jurisprudence by employing discretion and deference before conflating the issues of patient privilege and religious doctrine.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Austin column: With judicial decisions, stick to issue at hand

On July 9, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rendered a 4-3 majority decision to avoid ruling on whether minors should be allowed to make their own medical decisions, stating that such a decision should be

A link to this page will be included in your message.

Join Our Team!

If you are interested in working for an innovative media company, you can learn more by visiting: